David Noonan's historical perspective on 3.0 (Update: Part III posted)

[RFisher]

In fact, when I see playtesting discussed online I notice that most threads contain someone who doesn't consider that playtesting costs money.

That's the thing to me. I consider 90% of the value in paying for an RPG product is playtesting. Unless it's free, any price is too much if it hasn't been adequately playtested. I'd pay a premium for that.

 

[Glyfair]

What I wonder - do playtesters get something for their work? Are they paid, or do they just get free PHBs or something like that? That certainly isn't the case for public beta-testing in software, but that might be something different...

I dunno. I know it varies from company to company (and often within the lifespan of a company).

Typically, no. The "payment" for playtesting is typically the ability to see the rules in advance and the chance to have input into the final game.

 

[Hussar]

And how many are true RPG'ers? (IIRC, there were mentions of "newbies" [people brought in from marketing] as some of the "internal playetesters.) Would you rather have an Erik Mona or James Jacobs, or someone who has never played the game before as a playtester?

Both definitely. While an Erik Mona has tons of insight into the history of the game, that same insight also colors his perceptions.

Sorry Erik, didn't mean to single you out here.

It's true of any long time gamer. Our perceptions of what a game should and shouldn't do is entirely colored by our experiences. We know what 1e did. We know what 2e did. We know what 3e did. So, we bring that knowledge into 4e. How many mistakes did you make in 3e trying to use 2e rules?

I know I made some horrible calls at the table because I thought that the rules were the same as before. In the bridge between 3e and 3.5 there were also quite a few changes that tripped me up. I was still thinking in "3e" mode when trying to use the 3.5 ruleset.

That's the danger of using experienced gamers to test a system. Better by far to mix the testers with relative newbies who don't come with all the predetermined baggage.

 

[Glyfair]

That's the danger of using experienced gamers to test a system. Better by far to mix the testers with relative newbies who don't come with all the predetermined baggage.

And I believe a mix is important. IMO, the best group contains a mix of certain types. You want a "newbie" for the fresh perspective. You want the "rules lawyer" to find the poorly written rules. You want an experienced player, to see it from that point-of-view. You want a min-max player, so they can test the balance of the rules (munchkins don't work, since they tend to ignore the rules, and thus don't test them).

Of course, some groups might be largely one or more of these archetypes (except all "newbie" which has issues as a playtest group). That's not a problem as long as WotC has a good balance of playtesters.

A good organization takes the playtesters that give good feedback and tries to keep them in the loop. It doesn't matter how good your group is at finding issues and coming up with possible solutions/alternatives if you aren't good at expressing them to WotC. When you have a group that does both, you want to keep them.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Of course, some groups might be largely one or more of these archetypes (except all "newbie" which has issues as a playtest group). That's not a problem as long as WotC has a good balance of playtesters.

An all newbie group has great value as an observed playtest group. (You don't send the rules out to them; you bring them into the offices and watch them learn and play the game.)